The cost on the French contract had already gone up by tens of billions of dollars, and nothing had been delivered.

UK frigate program for Australia navy is having the same issues: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/getting-real-about-the-sch...

The most recent submarine program (Virginia class) was effectively on-budget.

Probably due to its predecessor, the Seawolf, from which it was derived ended up being wildly cost ineffective.

That is not correct.

Seawolf was cancelled and only three units were built, causing R&D costs to be spread across those three units, raising unit price.

It was cancelled because it was expensive, but it was ordered during the end of the cold war and was radically more capable than the class it was meant to replace. This cost was acceptable at time of order, but then subject to budget cuts after the USSR collapsed. This raised the per-unit cost, but lowered the overall cost.

The eventual replacement (Virginia) ended up being more evolutionary from the previous class (not from Seawolf) than revolutionary, but much cheaper.

Do you have a source for this? The Virginia shares many more features with the Seawolf that the LA class. The Virginia is basically a scaled down Seawolf hull with a different weapons arrangement.

Look at the USS San Juan and later hulls.

My source is having been on all three classes of submarine.

Concur. Unlikely to find prompt jumps in design that weren't previously field tested. Technologies pioneered by Seawolf class were rolled into the VA class, but ultimately decades of building 688s was more valuable than 3 Seawolfs (seawolves?)

For sure all that is right as well. But if I was in the Australian shoes this is just to good of deal from US and UK to turn down.

Of course, 'negotiation' concludes faster when it's one way.